Talk:Dark Avengers

Line up spec

We know Daken is one of them. Promo image of dark Avengers with him facing wolverine we can tell by his 2 up one down claws i think its on mycup of joe weekly blog on myspace comics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.134.246 (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Is the character named?
2. Is the naming done by Marvel, Quesada, or the writer?
3. Is the naming covered in a reliable source? Multiple reliable sources?
4. Is this based on fan/viewer assessment of a piece of promotional art?

To be honest, the "'Dark Wolvie'=Dearken" statement is an assumption. A rumor. Speculation.

In all likelihood the character's ID, along with the rest of the DA will be revealed in the 1st issue, due out in a month's time. Adding the information can wait until then.

Also keep in mind - this isn't a news site, nor is it a rumor/fan theory site.

- J Greb (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is a picture of deaken. Its not really up for debate if you want the article to be uninformative and not up to date be my guest. He is the only character in the MU with those claws and a bunch of other evidence, its just a logical evidence based assumption not just a fans conjecture.

The rest COULD be anybody although Its obvious who they are. but leave that till the release date to be certain just so false info isnt on there. but Deaken aint up for debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.134.246 (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying "This small element must be this character." only holds if Marvel isn't playing fast and loose with the elements.

Yes, right now there is a character in the MU with the "two over, one under" claw arrangement. That does not mean Marvel is being honest with the image or that they are not intending to introduce a brand new character with the same configuration.

Either of those cases is enough to justify not including a guess as fact. And as I pointed out above, this isn't an news site nor is it a site for posting fan speculations or theories. Adding information that Deaken or any specific character is involved can wait until there is either a definitive statement or the first issue hits the shelves. There is no deadline for these articles, so waiting is fine.

- J Greb (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that last one is important: "if you want the article to be uninformative and not up to date be my guest" - the comic hasn't yet been published and the character hasn't been discussed by the team producing the comic (they are clearly not showing all their cards to keep people guessing and get more buzz going before the title launches). So it isn't about not being up-to-date it is about getting ahead of ourselves, adding things that the available information doesn't demonstrate. I can guess who most of the characters will but this is an encyclopaedia and we don't go but what individual editors know but about what we can prove. (Emperor (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Suggested change:

Bullseye, Daken, Moonstone, Venom have been announced as members of this team. Based on the promotional image, it would seem these former Thunderbolts will be used to pay a bit of a homage to the original idea behind the T-Bolts: villains disguised as heroes.

Bullseye = Hawkeye

Daken?? = Wolverine

Moonstone = Captain Marvel

Venom = Spider-Man

Another anti-hero is shown in the second cover:

Ares, God of War

Along with Marvel Boy (Noh-Varr) and the so-called Iron Patriot (perhaps Norman Osborn himself as he's taking over every role left by Tony Stark including his armored Avenger persona). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.43.181.210 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well...

1. Where has it been announced that Bullseye, Daken, Moonstone, and Venom are members?
2. Basing anything about characters, short of "presented as "Foo" based on costumes", on the the promotional images is guessing.
3. Basing team rosters on characters present on promotional covers is guessing.
4. Making statements about who is under a particular mask with out a solid, citable reference (the comic in hand is a good start) is WP:OR (at best) or guessing (at worst).

So... how about we wait for the first issue to hit the store shelves near the end of the month?

- J Greb (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Captain Marvel" is most likely Ultra Girl, who took to wearing Carol Danver's original costume after graduating out of The Initiative.Bluecatcinema (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to answer in order to J Greb:

IIRC, both Newsarama and CBR (Daken wasn't mentioned, just the Thunderbolts). I don't have the urls readily at my fingertips buit it's easily verifiable.

It was also stated in those interviews that those characters (Moonstone, Bullseye, etc.) would start dressing as known heroes. Cut to the cover, what do you see? Known heroes with abilities similar to those of the former Thunderbolts. Based on those facts, I made a logical deduction, not a guess.

Oh well, I'll summarize saying all my very logical deductions (:p) are proving true. For example, what I said about Ultra Girl being far from likely being that Marvel on the promotional cover:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/images/solicits/marvelcomics/200904/AVNINIT023_cov.jpg

As you can see, Ultra Girl is in her classic costume on the cover of the Avengers: The Initiative April issue. :)

Joachim 200.80.230.107 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.230.107 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

People, lets just wait until the issues come out to post who is who. Until then, it is just speculation. I know everyone wants to be the first to post the roster, but lets wait. It isn't important yet. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Soooo, I was right about every single thing. Even Norman being "Iron Patriot". What can I say? I'm that good. Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. :p :)

Joachim200.80.230.107 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. No offense though, it was pretty easy to guess who was who. Still, you are funny as heck. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And you can take the act on the road to the comic book forums. This still isn't the place for it. - J Greb (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Please could someone post accurate breakdowns of the content of each issue in the main body of the article, as was done for Secret Invasion ? This is HUGELY useful for those of us who do not live in the States. I can live with my edits being removed, but not with the article not actualy containing details on the story concerned. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.110.58 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Evil or moraly ambigious?

Several pages describe them as evil, but im not sure.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.101.221 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

First released in January or March 2009?

In at least two places in the article/textboxes it says the series started January 2009 and in at least two places it says March 2009. So which is it? --EzelMannen (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction

The issue-by-issue plot descriptions and highly overdetailed material of interest only to hardcore fans violates both the abovementioned Wikipedia guidelines and WikiProject Comics guidelines. It's inconceivable that three issues of Dark Avengers takes up as much room as three years of Fantastic Four, say. It needs to be reduced drastically in order to be up to Wikipedia standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Describing or perhaps over-describing the Sentry

I didn't think it was accurate to say that the Sentry was "now fully under the Void's control" at the start of the series. I would have said something like "rapidly losing control of himself and easily manipulated by Osborn into letting the Void take control", (which is more than a mouthful). Initially, the Sentry struggled (in a rather infantile way) with the moral uncertainty of what Osborn was having him do. It really wasn't until the start of Siege that he was so completely The Void that he basically admitted it to Osborn. But anyway, then I realized this was mainly a paragraph introducing the original team and explaining who they really were. There was no reason for long descriptions, and since Ares didn't have any kind of aside explaining why he was on the team, I figured I'd just go ahead and take the whole bit about Sentry's state of mind out. It should probably figure in to a later part of the article, or maybe later in the same paragraph. --50.11.49.92 (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what I did next was expand the section concerning the Siege tie-in issues a little bit. I was concerned about over-detailing it or getting tedious, but really, it's just a slightly longer paragraph now. I started using the Sentry's name, (Robert) Reynolds, to avoid writing "Sentry/Void" over and over again, or to designate where it isn't certain (or even important) which of the two personalities were in control. I felt this arc of the book was also very much the story of Lindy Reynolds's tragic last days, so I added a few sentences about that. A good example of expanding without getting too silly would be this:

"When an emergency evacuation occurs, Bullseye takes Lindy on a helicopter, antagonizes her cruelly, then strangles her to death and dumps her body into the ocean."

was originally something like:

"Bullseye takes Lindy on a helicopter ride, then strangles her to death and dumps her body into the ocean."

I think it makes a lot more sense than just, suddenly she's in a helicopter with Bullseye.

Another example would be, how the Sentry and Void personalities had stalemated -- the Void couldn't kill her and the Sentry couldn't let her go -- which explains why Osborn astutely (if evilly) surmised that she was holding Reynolds back, and had Bullseye kill her in the first place, which furthered his goal of getting the Void in control. Or how Norman provided the addictive serum which made this insanely-powerful being willing to do his bidding at all. Well, I'm over-explaining it here on the Talk page now! But I think my additions to the article were reasonable.

--50.11.49.92 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)